From:
cdt-debug-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:cdt-debug-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of John Cortell
Sent: Tuesday, October 17, 2006
9:36 AM
To: CDT Debug developers list; CDT
Debug developers list
Subject: RE: [cdt-debug-dev] List
of Plan items
Mikhail,
The motivation for supporting IAdaptable is not to use it in the CDO back-end
(although one may certainly do so), but to use it in the CDT code. That is,
with it, we can stop using instanceof to check for interfaces. I suppose we
could have CDT use instance of to get the IAdaptable, but that doesn't really
close the gap all the way.
As for the historical reason...surely, that is no longer a relevant goal, is
it? I.e., four year-old uncertainties shouldn't restrict us today.
John
At 07:37 AM 10/17/2006, Mikhail Khodjaiants wrote:
John,
I don't know
if my answers will satisfy you, but I'll try.
1. If you need IAdaptable you can add it to your implementation and check if
your object is instance of IAdaptable.
2. Regarding the history, the idea was to create a pure (non Eclipse)
interface. Eclipse wasn't very stable at that time and the Debug API had just
changed very seriously (Eclipse 1.0 -> 2.0).
Regards,
Mikhail
From:
cdt-debug-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx [
mailto:cdt-debug-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx] On
Behalf Of John Cortell
Sent: 17 October 2006 13:23
To: CDT Debug developers list; CDT
Debug developers list
Subject: RE: [cdt-debug-dev] List
of Plan items
At 12:58 PM 10/16/2006, Alain Magloire wrote:
I do not see any difficulty except that it will break backward
compatibility
but since this is targeting a major release, it should not be a problem.
Hm. I'd like to stop for a second and discuss this point. Is it true that we
should be OK with breaking CDI compatibility in 4.0? We're working on various
features (which we will contribute for 4.0) where we go out of the way to not break compatibility, by, e.g.,
introducing an ICDIThread2. If we're looking at breaking compatibility anyway,
then there's no point in use going this messier route.
The other thing, is that we did not want to bring org.eclipse.*
namespace in
to the interface so we could;
I'm with Pawel--in need of a history lesson. Why is this?
John
--
IMPORTANT NOTICE: The contents of
this email and any attachments are confidential and may also be privileged. If
you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender immediately and do
not disclose the contents to any other person, use it for any purpose, or store
or copy the information in any medium. Thank you.
_______________________________________________
cdt-debug-dev mailing list
cdt-debug-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/cdt-debug-dev
